You're so full of shit. The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; To borrow Money on the credit of the United States; To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes; Congress passed a budget. They committed money and they have the power to pay those obligations.
This is a quote from Ronald Reagan, from September 26, 1987. http://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...back-to-reagan/2011/05/14/AF0PJp3G_story.html
Can anyone seriously argue that Obama isn't the closest thing we've had to Reagan? They're both great communicators, who stood right of center and not handcuffed by partisan dogma. Conservatives should love this guy.
And the democrats were trying to paint him as an extremist, just as the republicans are trying to do to Obama. History does repeat. Well maybe he was an extremist on some issues, by today's standards. Times were different and society is evolving. (Even Clinton comes across as a bit of an extremist on some social issues today). But Reagan had good common sense, and I think that is also true of Obama, for the most part.
At the time, as I recall, the time between raising the debt ceiling and possible default was very remote. I.e., I don't believe we've ever had a situation where potential default was a week away.
http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article29270.html http://spectator.org/archives/2009/01/21/was-there-ever-a-default-on-us/print# http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/04/fearing-another-u-s-debt-default/ Oh that's right; you're ignoring me. Fun fun.
Yeah. I'm not sure how close to the brink they were when Reagan said they were close to the brink. But I agree that this time it's going way too far. I support reducing the debt and reducing government spending, and I certainly can understand the minority party trying to use their leverage on the issue of the debt ceiling in order to get some concessions, or even just to make a political point. But you can only take it so far, and it appears that they already got some reasonable concessions from the majority. If they want more, they should save it for the next battle. Now the game of chicken is going too far. Failing to raise the debt limit would be incredibly stupid. They are not going to reduce the debt by engineering the failure to meet the obligations already incurred. It would only make the situation much worse than it already is.
I think that's a fair characterization. I'm not slamming the TP here because they are (somewhat) on the right side of the issue, even if it's out of luck rather than out of principle. Obviously we'd be in a lot different place if the President was Republican at the moment. I also don't think Obama is "compromising" out of the goodness of his heart, but because that's what he thinks he can get. Really, I hate the players and I hate the game.
Congress has authorized spending above what the law allows. But they don't actually spend the money. If Congress can "borrow Money on the credit of the United States", then why doesn't the budget, passed by Congress, override the debt ceiling, also passed by Congress?
Nixon already tried impounding money in the 70s and we all found out it's unconstitutional. The President has to spend what's in the budget. The budget is law. Is something going on in your personal life? Seriously. Cuz your posts are getting weirder and weirder week by week.
The right side of what issue? Most of the 20 countries with the biggest-spending governments are safe, healthy, happy places (although yes there are some bigtime exceptions, for example Iraq and Cuba), and most of the 20 countries with the lowest-spending governments are not (again there are exceptions, for example the U.S., Hong Kong, and Costa Rica). I don't see any evidence that less government is better, not if we're talking slogans and principles, as the Tea Party tends to do. Now on specifics, sure there might be plenty of places where we'd want to shrink government spending. And plenty where we might want to increase, too.
Good question? This is precisely why many constitutional scholars believe the debt ceiling would not survive constitutional review. So you can blame the legislature for this problem twice! They had a debt reduction proposal that contained massive concessions from a Democratic president, but they threw it in his face over tax increases on the "job creators". Instead, they're more likely to endorse the Mitch McConnell "do nothing but make Obama look bad plan" that has absolutely zero policy consequences but gives the Republicans a political advantage (in theory). They're not even playing chicken for policy reasons - they're doing it strictly for politics. Given how important this issue is..........that's pretty irresponsible. I understand scoring points politically as the party in opposition, but throwing up your hands in horror when you get 85% of what you ask for because it's "completely unreasonable" is no way to govern a country. Confidence in sovereign borrowing power is a funny thing - it can tip on surprisingly small things. If the Eurozone weren't dealing with very ominous signs of trouble coming from Italy (who may have trouble rolling its debt) which threaten the whole Euro project and drive Treasury yields lower, I suspect the markets would be paying this situation a lot more attention. Hopefully, of course, this gets resolved and we move on, as is the likelihood. Until the next wholly manufactured crisis, of course
It's "better" if less gvt. is the goal. That's how libertarians define "better." It's circular. If "better means a strong economy and a vibrant society, you're right. But libertarians don't care about that, because that means caring about other people's happiness.
That's not true. Libertarians believe that everyone reaches their potential if there are the fewest number of barriers to success. I reckon that Timon cares very much for the welfare of other people, he just has a different way of going about it.
I'm sure that he does. However, he advocates policies that are most likely harmful. Look, I have no dog in this fight, but if I go down a list of happy, healthy countries and find that most of them have big governments and people who believe in big governments, well damn there you have it. I just can't see making an argument that is so obviously refuted, and in such a major way. It's kinda like saying that the best basketball teams are full of short guys, I mean sure you can have your opinion but as an argument it's a nonstarter.
Here are the countries on Wiki's list where the federal tax burden and government spending are both less than 20% - Bangladesh Burma Cambodia Cameroon Central African Republic Ivory Coast Dominican Republic Ethiopia Guinea Guatamala Haiti Hong Kong Indonesia Laos Madagascar Nepal Pakistan Panama Paraguay Peru Philippines Singapore Taiwan Thailand Togo Uganda Countries where both numbers are north of 40 - Austria Belgium Denmark France Germany Hungary Iceland Italy Lesotho Norway Sweden
I would argue that, with a couple of exceptions, these countries are not places where people do not "believe in big governments" but, rather, where the governments do not (yet) have the means to be as big as they want to be. It should also be pointed out that a lot of the places on the list above are places where people from Western Europe expatriate to.
This is simply not true. At least not true in my anecdotal experiences. Libertarians are concerned that everyone have an opportunity to reach their potential (whatever that means) without barriers, but if they don't then its on them. There is no concern for the welfare of someone provided they have the same access to the tools of success. I have two problems with that philosophy. First, simply removing barriers will not equal the playing field, and in fact, the certain outcome of free market capitalism is that the wealthy will always have advantages that the middle class and poor do not have. Second, all the libertarians I know are very intelligent, self-sufficient people and they want to basically impart those characteristics on everyone. They have trouble with the notion that someone doesn't have the aptitude to go start a company that makes widgets if they don't like their job. In the real world, we know that there are lots of people who slip through cracks or are wired for artistic endeavors that don't include 401ks or need assistance in a number of different ways.
I know a lot of libertarians and I've never known one to say they were anti-charity. We're anti-force.
Right........because they're so cheap. I wonder if more people immigrate from the 20 countries with the least government to the 20 countries with the most? I think they do...........
lol I actually watch ZERO House Hunters International. I've just been around. My lady and I have land in Panama (she's from there and we met there more than 20 years ago) and you can't turn around without seeing an expatriate from Europe, the US or Canada.